Reflections on Richard Eaton’s book “The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier 1204-1760

Prior to reading Richard Eaton’s book “The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier 1204-1760”

my knowledge of the spread of Islam in Bengal was very minimal. In fact, being a Bengali

Buddhist, I, like most members of my community, believed that the popular narrative of

Buddhism’s decline in Bengal happened as a result of the invasion of Bengal led by Ikhtiyar al-

Din Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khilji. According to this narrative, after this invasion, Buddhists and

Hindus were converted to Islam by force (alluding to the theory of Islam as religion of the

sword). Eaton’s book, like most of the readings in our course so far, challenges this kind of over

generalized theories of Islamization of Bengal. His treatment of the pre-Islamic Bengal history is

understandably swift – just sufficient for contextualizing the place, culture, and history wherein

the Turkish and Mughal conquests took place. But Islamization of Bengal did not happen only

because of forced conversion.

Eaton, however, does acknowledge that “Persian biographies often depict early Sufi holy men of

Bengal as pious warriors waging war against the infidel.” (p.73) Although, Eaton clarifies that

these “biographies were not contemporary with the Sufis” (p.73), the political and religious elites

during the sultanate period did not always have a favorable attitude to the people of other

religions in Bengal. This is displayed in the disparaging remarks in some of the Sufi writings on

Raja Ganesh, a Hindu king (p.90). During his rule, the Sufi poets wrote, Bengal “has been

overwhelmed and put to the run by darkness of infidels and the power of unbelievers” (p.90).

The Sufis who played a significant role during the Sultanate period, strongly advocated to oust

Raja Ganesh from the throne. Although the actual situation might have been political in nature –
sultans and native descendants of pre-Sultanate Bengali kings fighting for power – the language

of the Sufi poets does demonstrate a prejudicial attitude to non-Muslims which did manifest in

some temple destructions as well (for instance the destruction of Nālandā is attributed to Ikhtiyar

al-Din Bakhtiyar Khilji ). However, Eaton strongly argues that during the sultanate rule, there

were ashraf and migrant Muslims, but Islam did not yet reach into large areas of Bengal where

Muslims are currently majority.

Eaton shows the fact that the region of eastern Bengal (current Bangladesh) had a large Muslim

population has been a matter of controversy/puzzle for many colonial demographic surveyors,

and even contemporary anthropologists and scholars. Eaton very convincingly discounts four

popular theories of Islamization of Bengal. Accordingly, (1) the theory of Islam as a religion of

social liberation argues that Hindus voluntarily became Muslims to become free from the

oppressive caste system (p.120). Eaton asserts that while there is no historical evidence for this

claim of mass conversion of oppressed Hindus to Islam, even within Islamic societies there are

strong social stratifications and people born into lower sections live their lives doing menial

works. (2) Immigration theory asserts that Bengali Muslims are descendants of the elite ashrāf

Muslims whose ancestry goes back to the lineage of prophet Muhammad. Eaton shows with

evidences from some twentieth century studies on peoples’ blood group, that Bengali Muslims

are not immigrants. (3) The theory of Religion of the sword (p.123) asserts that “enthusiastic

soldiers who, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, spread the faith of Islam among the timid

races of Bengal” (p.123). There is also no strong evidence for this theory – as Muslim population

increased during the rule of Mughals who generally had tolerant attitudes to other religions and

maintained a separation between religion and politics in their administration. (4) Finally, the
theory of political patronage asserts that non-Muslims became Muslims in order to gain political

and economic favors from their rulers. As many Muslims lived in peripheral regions, farther

away from the political centers and capitals, this theory is also not convincing to explain the

Islamization of Bengal. I personally know that even now many people bearing the Mughal titles

ta’lluqdār and chaudhuri are Buddhists and Hindus – evidence that conversion to Islam was not

a requirement to gain Mughal favours.

While each of these theories may have some truth in some parts of Bengal or pre-modern India,

they do not explain satisfactorily why Bengal has the second largest Muslim population in the

world. Two parts of Eaton’s argument stood out to me, firstly Eaton argues that geological and

climatological changes played a major role in increasing the agrarian potential of Bengal’s lands.

In spite of many difficulties passing through the forests and damps, hardships due to diseases

related to water and insects etc. Mughal’s persistent conquest of Bengal aimed at exploring for

the agrarian potential of Bengal’s fertile lands and forests. The second, part of the argument is

that the quest for pastoral lands led the Mughals into the Bengal’s hinterlands and brought them

into contacts with the indigenous people who did not have a formal religion. Majority of the

Bengal’s Muslims were these indigenous population – who were neither immigrants nor Hindus.

My attention was drawn by Eaton’s observation that the pre-Islamic indigenous people’s “social

order lacked natural nodes of authority” (p.232). I was not sure if this lack of authority

contributed in any way for the Islamization of Bengal.

Methodologically, I was also fascinated by Eaton’s hagiographies of “holy men”. Based on these

hagiographies surviving in both oral tradition of folk lore and written forms, Eaton convincingly
argues that these holy men, pīrs, were charismatic pioneers, who were associated “with forest

clearing and land reclamation.” (p.207) Stories of their fearlessness and taming wild animals

encouraged the farmers and fishermen to venture into dense forests turning them into agrarian

lands. Eaton’s reference to these charismatic persons as civilization-builders (p.211) reminded

me Marshall Hodgson’s term “Islamicate” and our discussions on the civilizational impact of

Islam in South Asia. Surprisingly Eaton does not use this expression. Eaton uses Persian poems,

oral narratives, mosque architectures to make his arguments compelling.

Few remarks: on page 230, Eaton uses the expression “six-hundred years of Muslim rule” that

made of question his periodization of South Asian history. Before that he uses Turkish or

Mughal conquests but using the expression “Muslim rule” seems to subscribe into the British

periodization of Indian history.

On page 216. Eaton discusses sekaśubhodaya – a poem on Shaikh Jalal al-Din Tabrizi. I thought

some contextualization of sekaśubhodaya – like who wrote it, why – would have been helpful.

As I raise this point, I am thinking of our discussion on the Sanskrit in Mughal courts.

On page 72. Eaton refers to Buddhism as a cult. He also uses the word cult in other ways like

‘saint cults’ (p.176). I thought some clarification as to the use of the word cult was necessary.

Eaton discusses the role of Sufīs during the sultanate rule and pīrs in the Mughal rule. He calls

the pīrs. What is the difference between the pīrs and sufīs? What was the relationship between

pīrs and mānsābdārs?